By mutual consent, this petition is taken up for final disposal at this stage.
2. Though the petitioner has come forward with an earlier prayer to quash the order, dated 28.02.2008, passed by the first respondent in respect of appointment of the second respondent as conductor in the first respondent corporation, now the prayer has been amended by an order dated 02.11.2009 and accordingly the name of the second respondent herein is ordered to be deleted in this Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner has come forward with the amended prayer, seeking for the relief of quashing the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Ref.No.cjm- 3223, dated 28.02.2008 and consequentially directing the first respondent to consider him for the post of Conductor in Dindigul Region.
4. Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contented that the petitioner is qualified and eligible to the post of Conductor in the first respondent Transport Corporation and he hails from Schedule Caste community. It is contented that the petitioner being qualified and eligible also sponsored by the Employment Exchange, attended interview for the selection to the post of conductor on 08.05.2007 before the first respondent. It is submitted that after verification of necessary certificates, the petitioner was eagerly waiting for the appointment order to the post of Conductor but the petitioner was not appointed by the first respondent to the post of Conductor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contented that as the first respondent has not followed the reservation policy as fixed by the Government, the petitioner has not able to get the post of Conductor. It is contended that thereafter the petitioner made a representation dated 10.12.2007 under the Right to Information Act to the Assistant Director, District Employment Office, Theni, requesting to furnish the information as per the list of candidates sponsored by them and thereafter communication dated 05.02.2008 was furnished to the petitioner containing list of candidates sponsored for being considered to the post of Conductor. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that thereafter a list of selected candidates for the post of Conductor was also furnished.
6. It is contended that even in the counter, except by giving bald and vague reply to the effect of following the reservation policy, no other details are furnished by the first respondent herein to the effect that the first respondent actually followed the reservation policy of the Government. It is contented that there is no indication in the counter as to how many candidates appeared in each category, namely from Backward Class, Most Backward Class and Schedule Caste community. Therefore, it is submitted that the entire process of selection is vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in respect of first respondent Transport Corporation, they shall follow the reservation policy of the Government and they cannot deviate from such policy. It is contented that, if such reservation policy is followed, the petitioner would have very well been selected for the post of Conductor. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the decision of this Court, reported in 2008 Writ L.R. 907 (M.Ravi Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Salem Division, Salem and others)in support of contention.
7. Per contra, Mr.P.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contented that there is no illegality or irregularity in the selection process.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the first respondent followed the reservation policy. It is submitted that the impugned order challenged by the petitioner is only an information and not the order. The learned counsel for the respondent also further submitted that it is categorically stated by the respondent in the counter affidavit that the first respondent followed the reservation policy and the selection was made on the basis of merit of each candidate, considering the job knowledge, public relation and work efficiency. Therefore, it is submitted that this petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
9. I have carefully considered the rival contention put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on record.
10. The main question arises for consideration before this Court is whether the first respondent has followed the reservation policy in respect of appointment to the post of Conductor.
11. The grievance of the petitioner as seen from the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not selected only on the ground of non-observing or not following the reservation policy of the Government. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner hails from Schedule Caste community. The fact remains that the petitioner is also qualified and eligible to the post of Conductor and accordingly he was sponsored by the employment exchange and therefore attended the interview and certificate verifications were made by the first respondent in respect of the petitioner for the post of Conductor. It is seen that the petitioner was able to get the information only by making a representation by invoking the provision under Right to Information Act, regarding the persons who have already been selected to the post of conductor by the respondent herein. The perusal of the selection list does not disclose the categories to which the selected candidates belong to. Though it is contented by the learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance on the counter, it is seen that in the counter, only a bald and vague explanation given to the effect that the respondent followed the reservation policy of the Government in selection to the post of Conductor. However, absolutely there is no indication as to how many persons appeared in each category of community namely Backward class, Most backward class and Schedule caste community. The learned counsel for petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Court, reported in 2008 Writ L.R. 907 (M.Ravi Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Salem Division, Salem and others).
12. This Court had held in the above said decision as hereunder:
"16. From the above narrated facts it is evident that the Transport Corporations are appointing persons in the posts of drivers and conductors without reference to the number of vacancies notified, not following communal reservation as contemplated under Rule 22(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, and without following uniform mode of selection. The Transport Corporation being the Undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu and fully owned by the Government, are bound to follow the policies of the Government. In W.P.No.426 of 2008, order dated 19.08.2008 (B.Kali Jothi v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd., Chennai & others), I had an occasion to consider the claim of a destitute woman, who was not selected as conductor in spite of 30% horizontal reservation given to women candidates as per G.O.Ms.No.89 P&AR Department dated 17.02.1989 as well as Rule 21(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, prescribing reservation for destitute widows. The attitude of the respondents seems to be that it is not bound by any law or the Constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. At least in future, the Government must see that the respondents must follow the policy decisions of the Government, which are not followed hitherto and the validly enacted laws are not violated."
13. The above decision rendered by this Court makes it crystal clear that the respondent should follow the reservation policy of the Government. As rightly pointed out that even in the counter, except making a bald and vague reply that reservation policy was followed in the selection to the post of Conductor, there is absolutely no other materials produced before this Court for substantiating such contention. It is also not known in what basis they have called for employment exchange to sponsor the names to the post of Conductor.
14. It is now reported before this Court by the the learned counsel for the respondent that already selection process is over and the candidates who have been already selected had been appointed. In view of the said position, this Court is constrained to direct the respondent herein to follow the reservation policy of the Government strictly in future in respect of the selection of conductors, drivers or any other in the respondent Transport Corporation. As far as the petitioner is concerned, this Court is constrained to direct the respondent herein to select and appoint the petitioner in the next available vacancy provided the petitioner satisfies the other qualification and eligibility. It is made clear that though the petitioner was qualified and eligible even in respect of age when he has applied for the post of Conductor now it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner crossed the age of 40 years. This Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no fault on the part of the petitioner and if the respondent strictly followed the reservation, he could have very well been secured the post of Conductor. Therefore, this Court is also constrained to direct the respondent herein to relax the rule regarding the age limit in respect of the petitioner.
15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.
skn/cs To The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Dindigul Region.